difference between e450 and a ml570

I might get some mean looks from Unix admins for this one (I too am a Unix admin and never wish to admin an Intel server, but I also try to remain unbiased). I think you will be fine using a comparable intel platform. Here is what you should consider in making your decision for the intel platform model and config.

In some cases the Intel platform may even be better than the risc platform. The risc platform is far superior for number crunching, database management and things of that nature, but the intel platform is far superior for graphics and some other things. What it comes down to is if you need to run a single job the intel platform will run it much faster than the risc platform. The programs are smaller and the tasks are simpler. However, if you want to run multiple jobs at the same time the risc platform becomes much better. The programs are geared towards managing the kernel to handle this type of computing much better and there is a seemingly less amount of wait time for taks completion per user. So this depends on how the Siebel server (I'm unfamiliar with this product) will work and what it will be used for. As for config comparisons, you will want more horespower on the intel platform in the way of CPUs. Risc CPUs can handle heavier workloads because of the way the instruction sets are written. I would say 4 Risc CPUs = 6 intel or take your total (4X ?? MHz) X 1.5 = total MHz needed in the intel platform. The other thing to consider is RAM. Intel utilizes less RAM than Risc. One of the reasons Risc can handle large instructions faster is because it loads everything it can into memory and has sophisticated swapping procedures. I would say in Intel you would only need about 3/4 of the RAM recommended for Risc. Also, pay attention to bus speed for both board and add on cards. You don't want to take the recommendation for an E450 and get something that is comparable i

I too am a UNIX administrator - but I also administer NT/2000 servers. Off the cuff, if you have no UNIX expertise, I'd suggest the ML 570. Not knowing the system requirements, or your environment (up-time requirements, etc.), I'd have the following general observations:

1. Your W2K server is going to experience more downtime than a Solaris box.

2. You cannot directly compare Wintel and RISC systems. I.e., a dual 200 MHz RISC box will - typically - run circles around a quad 800 MHz PIII.

3. If the vendor recommends a single E450, I'd seriously look into a two-way cluster on the Wintel side.

4. I don't know if Siebel uses an underlying RDBMS - such as ORACLE. If you are going with ORACLE, I'd recommend UNIX. If your aregoing with W2K, I'd recommend SQL Server 2000.

Finally, if you don't do what your consultant tells you, he will always have an out, if stuff don't work as advertised ("you should have listened to me ...). :-) I know, I am a consultant myself.
Another thought: Start over from the other end: What are your requirements? 99% uptime, or 99.999%? Work the system requirement for your COMPAQ that way, and then let the consultant spec a UNIX box "head-to-head". See what his rational is for size of memory, number of processors, HA hardware, etc.

Your consultant is gauging on actual throughput, based on your transaction and user load, rather than MHz or number of processors.

Typically a UNIX RISC processor has between 2 and 4 times the cache (so processses 2 to 4 times the amount of dataper CPU cycle), and a bus that processes data 2 to 3 times faster than a bus used to support intel. The actual outcome is that a SUN, HP, or IBM risc processor has about 2.5 to 3 times the throughput of an Intel when using SCSI type disc, and about 4 times the throughput if using fibre channel I/O.

Windows uses almost an entire CPU about 80% of the time to manage itself, while UNIX only uses a processor about 20% of the time. With w2K you are effectively actually running 3 processors, if you select a 4 processor machine.

If you are running small, quick transactions, using chunks of data that fit in the Intel cache, the performance can be equal.

Siebel however processes large amounts of data against a database, and is both CPU and I/O intensive.

Between the slower bus for the I/O, and the smaller CPU cache, you will actually need an 8 way 1.8Ghz, or 16 way 900Mhz, to get the same throughput as the SUN 4 way 900Mhz. (that is why a 4 way UNIX box cost 3 or 4 time what a4 way Intel costs...it is not an apples and apples comnparison).

There is one new alternative however, if you want W2K........HP and IBM both have new boxes based on the new Intel Itanium 64-bit processor (and since HP is merging with COMPAQ anyway) that has the same cache as the RISC, and utilizes the same BUS as the RISC machines.

The price is more along the lines of the UNIX box....several times what your Compaq server would be (but along the same lines as the SUN), but it would give you the throughput, and let you use your W2K. (The HP can run LINUX, HP-UX UNIX, or W2K).

This question was auto closed due to inactivity